From LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Fri Sep 10 19:37:38 1999 Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 20:49:47 -0500 From: "L-Soft list server at University of Illinois at Chicago (1.8c)" To: Laura Quilter Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF-LIT LOG9905B" ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 06:27:47 -0400 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: donna simone Subject: Re: Mission Child MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hmmmm......karma, fate, destiny? I attended a local SFF conference this weekend and unexpectedly had occasion to have lunch with Maureen McHugh. Well more like I "made" an occasion so that I could ask her if she would be willing to answer any of our questions about Mission Child. She said she would be delighted to answer any questions our group forwarded. Keep this in mind as you read or as we discuss. I for one am putting at the top of the list: "So what question _did_ Raphael Carter ask you?" I will compile something towards the end of the month after we have had a bit longer to discuss the text. donna donnaneely@earthlink.net ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 11:10:51 -0400 Reply-To: releon@syr.edu Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Rudy Leon Organization: Syracuse University Subject: Mission Child MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thinking about what Donna wrote on May 5, in her attempt to convert us to loving Mission Child, and Janna's comfort level with her gender ambiguity: In part I think Jan/Janna's lack of compulsion to declare a gender is in context (but not in a way that McHugh seems to notice or develop) because gender is culture specific. S/he doesn't ever have to impinge upon her cultural constructs of maleness (except maybe once or twice with the Shaman, but s/he was pretty stoned when s/he went through the spirit door), because the vast majority of time that she is a he, s/he is not with the renner, but the city people or the Mennos or the island people, so much about who s/he is to the people who surround her/him is outside of their known categories that gender itself is a barely relevant identity category -- she doesn't know how to be male or female for the city or the islands anyways, and always, male is safer than female.... just a couple thoughts, pre-caffeine. Can't say I loved this book, it seems provocative by accident, like McHugh built a world she can't quite get a reading on. Or maybe it's a character that could be provocative int he situations McHugh built, but just didn't; have the depth of mind? Something sits uneasy I guess is all I can come up with at this point. Rudy Leon PhD Student Department of Religion Syracuse University releon@syr.edu (315) 425-8171 fax: (707) 982-1780 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 10:16:49 -0500 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: N Clowder Subject: BDG: Grass Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" There hasn't been a whole lot of discussion of Grass. Where is everybody? Does the book not excite/require comment? Is Tepper that good? That boring? I read Grass years ago, so I was already acquainted with the mysteries around which the book is structured. But it worked dramatically just as well as ever. In particular, once Marjorie & Co. went off into the grass to look for Stella, I couldn't put it down. Grass remains infinitely re-readable to me because Tepper is working with such a broad palette. First, there is the world-building. I have a vivid picture of a world of grasses I have never seen. I found particularly interesting the way Tepper opened with a kind of "ode" to Grass (in present tense), a device to which she returns once or twice later in the book. It gives a sense of "someone" watching developments from a distance, a perspective outside of time, which I think contributes to the never-quite-explicit feeling that there is some intelligence on Grass itself that exists above/beyond the specific intelligences of the various species (did anyone else experience that?) I'm a little surprised Tepper didn't return to this device at the end (not that I found the ending lacking for that reason - though I did feel a teeny-weeny sense of anti-climax). Secondly, there are the characters. I was quite satisfied with the characterization, but after reading some posts here, I have to agree that not all are as rounded as they might be. I thought someone's observation that Rigo was always in angry-mode was a good one. Stella, too was perpetually angry. Since our view of those two is essentially focused on their relationship to Marjorie, and since Marjorie never satisfied them (to say the least), it makes a kind of sense. It's interesting how Tepper set up these two character-types - the angry Rigo/Stella, and the (initially) placating-conciliatory Marjorie/Tony - so that each type was represented in both genders. Rigo's aggressiveness can be parlayed into social advantages, but it is difficult to see that Stella's will ever lead to anything but personal frustration. Rigo has a world to work with, Stella has only her family. They both structure their universes with themselves at the center, and Stella's universe simply isn't big enough to give her breathing room. (Would any universe be big enough? Is Rigo's really big enough?) Marjorie's belief that some day Stella will "grow out of it" is not too realistic, given Rigo as Stella's father, and stems from Marjorie's habit of not acknowledging the bad side of those around her. Marjorie and Tony structure their universes in a typically co-dependent fashion (how can I serve? I must do penance for wanting anything for myself.) We do see Marjorie struggle with this, which makes her interesting, but we don't see much struggle in Tony, and I wonder what this says about a male character with a stereo-typically female outlook. I found Tony the least interesting of the major characters. He was an extension of Marjorie, and one of a number of men who were touched by her suffering (martyrdom?) and who became silently devoted to her. When Marjorie charges off to Stella's rescue, it is primal mother-instinct driving her, but comes off as intelligent (rather than womb-driven) because of the carefully built-up picture of Marjorie's outrage with injustices that society just accepts. She has been struggling with this for some time, but it isn't until it hits her in the gut this way that she leaps the fence and says to-hell-with-society. It's an interesting exercise to picture the story with Tony as the kidnapped one instead of Stella. The book abounds with examinations and depictions of denial - a subject dear to my heart. It's not an easy thing to depict, and I think Tepper did it cleverly - especially the way she opened with the bons going to the Hunt. Everyone on Grass, including the commoners, is to some extent mesmerized by the Hippae. It takes an outside agent (Marjorie) to see what has become so axiomatic as to be socially invisible. (Mainoa is an agent working from the inside, but it is doubtful that he would ever have done anything about the situation. Is that because he really cares for no one except his dead Arbai?) I have some strong feelings about axioms in our society. . . having the agency of social blindness personified in the Hippae feels right-on to me. Marjorie, too, is beset by denials, but though she makes many break-throughs, I felt right to the end that she was still susceptible to them, and thus not made unduly heroic. Lastly, the book remains re-readable to me for the way Tepper looks at various ideas, such as one's relationship with god and the purpose of life. I absolutely loved the scene where Marjorie visits with god after knocking herself on the head. The one thing that really troubled me about the book was the Hippae themselves. I'm re-reading (again) to see if I missed something, but I didn't get why they were so malicious. So unrelievedly evil. I think Tepper may have offered some explanation in terms of Hippae evolution, but it's hard for me to buy creatures that are so single-mindedly focused on torturing or killing others. And some of the things in the Hippae-bon relationship, such as the bons caution never to refer to the Hippae even as "mounts" where the Hippae could hear, don't, on retrospect, make a lot of sense, although they worked to dramatic advantage in the story. And now, a question. Can someone please explain to me the closing lines? "Marjorie, by the grace of god, grass. . ." It's the word "grass" I don't understand. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 11:21:38 -0700 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: Re: BDG: Grass In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 10 May 99 10:16:49 CDT." <1.5.4.32.19990510151649.01212340@mail.utexas.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >And now, a question. Can someone please explain to me the closing lines? >"Marjorie, by the grace of god, grass. . ." It's the word "grass" I don't >understand. My reading of that sentence was "Marjorie, who (by the grace of god) is grass." Little, single, part of a whole...this would tie into the "virus" concept. I haven't been able to find my copy of Grass this month (I think my mom loaned it to one of her friends) but that's what I remember. I don't know whether this "explains" the whole thing. :) jessie ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 18:30:17 -0700 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Lindy Lovvik Subject: Re: BDG: Grass MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit N Clowder wrote: > There hasn't been a whole lot of discussion of Grass. Where is everybody? > Does the book not excite/require comment? Is Tepper that good? That boring? Grass deserves comment, but I haven't yet gotten a copy to re-read it. SOMEONE in my county has chosen NOT to return _Grass_ to the library. . . perhaps he or she simply cannot bear to part with it. >:) > I read Grass years ago, so I was already acquainted with the mysteries > around which the book is structured. But it worked dramatically just as > well as ever. In particular, once Marjorie & Co. went off into the grass to > look for Stella, I couldn't put it down. You've reminded me that I had the same reaction at that particular point. Too often, I get annoyed with mystery in a novel, feeling manipulated as I was strung along. When this happens, I finally jump forward to satisfy my curiosity. I didn't feel like doing this with _Grass._ > I have a vivid > picture of a world of grasses I have never seen. Yes, Tepper did an excellent job with this world. Too good, in fact. I was never completely comfortable "being" in this world as I read because I am exceeding allergic to every kind of grass on planet earth to the point of fatal reaction. She described it all so well that I could almost feel myself getting hives and wheezing! > I found particularly > interesting the way Tepper opened with a kind of "ode" to Grass (in present > tense), a device to which she returns once or twice later in the book. It > gives a sense of "someone" watching developments from a distance, a > perspective outside of time, which I think contributes to the > never-quite-explicit feeling that there is some intelligence on Grass itself > that exists above/beyond the specific intelligences of the various species > (did anyone else experience that?) Yes, but I cannot comment intelligently since I haven't read it for months. I remember it was haunting, and pre-cog? or elseways "out" of time (perhaps an early introduction to the Arbai's travel portals?) > And now, a question. Can someone please explain to me the closing lines? > "Marjorie, by the grace of god, grass. . ." It's the word "grass" I don't > understand. Again my currently somewhat unreliable memory must serve, but I seem to remember wondering if it was a play on her herbal name, or if grass was being hailed along with god as an equal. . . oh, I need to re-read this! Good points made and points to ponder included. Thanks! Lindy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 18:50:25 -0700 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Lindy Lovvik Subject: Re: Mission Child MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rudy Leon wrote: > Thinking about what Donna wrote in May 5, in her attempt to > convert us to loving Mission Child, and Janna's comfort level with > her gender ambiguity: > > In part I think Jan/Janna's lack of compulsion to declare a gender is > in context (but not in a way that McHugh seems to notice or > develop) because gender is culture specific. snip. . . so much about > who > s/he is to the people who surround her/him is outside of their > known categories that gender itself is a barely relevant identity > category -- she doesn't know how to be male or female for the city > or the islands anyways, and always, male is safer than female.... Excellent points, Rudy. Then, when I read the last sentence I've quoted here, I heard a distinct and echoing "bingo" in my head. It made things fall into place for me regarding this novel. No matter in what culture Jan/na lives, male IS safer than female. Jan/na's lack of compulsion to choose one gender is truly the only thing I liked without reservation about her. I didn't find her especially intelligent, nor terribly compassionate, nor active within her circumstances. However, I did identify with her active lack of choice between one gender and another. And her will to survive. Despite my attempt to view Jan/na as genderless, I must admit to myself that I see Jan and Janna as "she." But a very broad "she" thanks to her willingness to expand her gender horizons, I think. I've been away for a while nearly all week, and as I read the messages posted about _Mission Child_, I was quite impressed with the concepts and perspectives posted during discussion. Good work! You've all given me a lot to consider as I attempt a re-read of this book. Lindy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 18:41:29 -0700 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Joyce Jones Subject: Mission Child Stacey criticizes this book for many of the facets that I think make it most believable. He (I think) writes: "How many clues does she need to figure out that Mika is dealing drugs? And she doesn't -once- think about what would happen to her if she is caught with those drugs in her locker. It never -once- occurs to her to become a Shaman-- a profession that would have brought her respect, gotten her into a new clan and where cross-dressing is accepted. She is practically handed an education and an engineering career on a silver platter and she walks away from it." Perhaps you view the situation from a middle-American-just-say-no-work-hard-and-plan-for-retirement perspective. I do think Jan/na knew Mika was dealing drugs, and I think s/he liked the drugs. I also think in time s/he would have found them debilitating and would have drawn back from over-use. As for her not realizing what would happen if caught with the plates in her locker, you're right. I don't think s/he had that same kind of knowledge and paranoia about the drug culture that most of us have, and it would have worked to her detriment had s/he been caught. But I don't think s/he should be criticized for lack of our understanding. I was very taken with her rescuing of the Shaman from the camps and her sense of duty in caring for him. Of course she bridled against his critical attitude toward her, he was not exactly a loving kind of parental figure, but then neither were her actual parents. S/he doesn't seem to have expected the kind of permissive, accepting love that we 20th century parents espouse, but s/he nevertheless exhibited a strong sense of commitment to and respect for his leadership. I think she did think a little about becoming a Shaman and, had she stayed with him longer, probably would have. But her heart wasn't in that direction, s/he didn't have the soul of a healer. As for her giving up the engineering career that was offered, that's the kind of thing any parent would say. Yes we want our children to have a secure career, but she most definitely didn't want to keep her day job. If I remember correctly, it was only while working in the city and being forced to get to work on time every day that she felt most alienated from her spirit. This was the only period of her life that she had both the physical luxury and the spiritual constraint to hate. I liked Janice Dawley's analysis that "In SF there is a long tradition of writing about (mostly white male) underdogs who turn out to be geniuses and who outsmart the aliens, make great discoveries or become rulers of the galactic federation. (Who was it who said that American SF tends toward simple power fantasies?) I see McHugh as consciously addressing this tradition with her characters who can barely keep themselves alive, let alone save humanity, who never understand the Great Conspiracy, who aren't masters of the martial arts, and who aren't able to learn new languages at the drop of a hat. I find it new and interesting." The fact that Jan/na wasn't a genius and didn't end up as ruler of the galaxy doesn't mean that her life story was meaningless. Yes s/he rolled with the punches. I think rather than showing a lack of character that showed versatility and stamina. Yes s/he chose to become a gardener. S/he used knowledge of biology, muscles, the capacity to nurture, the ability to react to new situations, a love of beauty... it seems to me like a perfect career choice for one who doesn't want to limit oneself. Ten years after the end of the book if a new career s/he liked better presented itself, I have no doubt s/he'd give that one a try too. No s/he wasn't going to marry Cha-li, but I don't think she would dismiss the idea of marriage entirely. She's open to life, s/he's ready to respond to what comes. I don't see that as a limiting characteristic. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 19:04:33 -0700 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Joyce Jones Subject: BDG Grass teenage daughters I haven't read Marge Piercy's _Gone to Soldiers_ but find it disappointing that she too has the whiney, ridiculous, boy crazy teenage daughter. Besides Stella in Grass, Tepper has the same character in Gate To Woman's country. She's also was in the TV show Picket Fence, the only really obnoxious character in the series. Why is it so easy for feminists to write such thoroughly loathsome daughters? Strongly opinionated teenage girls can be the heroines of stories, but teenage daughters are a different species. Is it the Daddy's little girl character that author's are writing against? Are they writing about girls they knew and hated when they were teenagers? We've all known this kind of girl, we do know she seems to be the popular token girlfriend of the football squad, but why does she so haunt our adult psyches that feminist authors must turn her into their fictional daughters. What must she be representing? Why is she so easy to hate? I've been a teenaged daughter, I've had a teenaged daughter, neither of us had much in common with Stella. If I were to write about a teenaged daughter, she certainly wouldn't be Stella-like. Why do some of our best feminist authors have to depict the main feminist character's daughter as such an anti-feminist? Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 19:38:48 -0700 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: BDG: Mission Child Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain I actually know the exact point where I realized that this book wasn't going to do what I wanted: when Jan/na lost her job. I was so frustrated, so annoyed. I had thought that she was going to learn the language, get better at it, move up in the world, get better jobs, fit into the power structure--at this point I started laughing. Purely out of reflex I had decided that it was "better" or "improving" to work at this crappy factory job. Even though the whole first section of the book had been about the problems with taking non-industrialized people and shoving them into an industrialized setting. If we think of Janna as someone from a rural existence who's brought to a major city, and who gets a job working in, let's say, a canning factory, that pushes all kinds of buttons for me about how wrong it is. I'd meant to write more (and I hope to later) but it seems like this is still on topic, so out it goes! I'm really enjoying all the other comments, even the ones from people who disliked the books. Although they remind me of things I didn't like, they also remind me of how much I like it that the book didn't do what I expected. _Half the Day is Night_ was like this for me also: I had to make a conscious decision not to demand certain things. I don't know if the book was improved by *all* of its weirdnesses, but I sure got a mental workout. jessie ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 19:28:47 -0800 Reply-To: shander@cdsnet.net Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Sharon Anderson Subject: Re: BDG Grass teenage daughters MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Joyce Jones wrote: > > I haven't read Marge Piercy's _Gone to Soldiers_ but find it disappointing > that she too has the whiney, ridiculous, boy crazy teenage daughter. ....... > Are they writing about girls they knew and hated when they were teenagers? ......... > What must she be representing? Why is she so easy to hate? Now, wait a minute. Suppose Stella had been as nice, sweet, compliant and milquetoast as Tony? Would we have a plot? I don't think so. Remember, Marjorie had resolved to let Rigo go and get himself killed, if he was stupid enough to be so inclined. SOMEone needs to provide the impetus for Marjorie to pull herself out of the co-dependant muck and go on the warpath. Suppose the characters of Tony and Stella had been reversed? If Stella had been sweet and compliant and milquetoast, imagine the criticism THAT might have engendered! "All of the men are self-centered and totally unlikeable!" "What's the matter with Tepper, she thinks women have no backbone, they just let themselves be walked on until extraordinary circumstances propel them to stand up for themselves. Doesn't she know any teenage girls who have a mind and a will of their own?" Secondly, I don't think we are supposed to assume Stella represents Tepper's idea of the typical female daughter. Stella and Marjorie (at the beginning) are two sides of the same person, two faces of the same individual. Marjorie is the "angel with the halo," sitting on your right shoulder, counseling you to be good, to think of others before yourself, to sacrifice and pray and bend the head and bend the knee. Stella is the "devil with the pitchfork," sitting on your left shoulder, who counsels you that the angel is feeding you a line of swill, that nothing positive will ever happen for you unless you reach out gladly and take your fate into your own hands, and the sooner the better. Stella doesn't grow; she remains an incomplete person. Marjorie grows. She incorporates both of the little critters sitting on each shoulder and learns to integrate them. That she can do so is what motivates the foxen to think there might be hope for this species. She can put other species ahead of herself, and even be willing to sacrifice her own life to save another. But she is also capable of great anger and (potentially) great violence. She threatens to destroy the foxen unless she gets the needed help. The foxen, at least, believe her. Sharon L. Anderson ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 23:22:42 -0400 Reply-To: kamholse@fuse.net Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Sally Kamholtz Subject: Re: BDG: Grass MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit i wonder if in some way it alludes to that medieval Latin saying, 'all flesh is grass.' That is to say, all life, all physical life, is transitory and fleeting. That would seem appropriate to marjorie's moving into another phase of life with her foxen friend, where she may not even retain her own name.. (i'm sorry about the missing capitals--i spilled water on my keyboard this morning and the left shift doesn't work! i'm hoping it will dry out, but i may be heading out to the computer store in the a.m.). Sally kamholtz Jessie Stickgold-Sarah wrote: > >And now, a question. Can someone please explain to me the closing lines? > >"Marjorie, by the grace of god, grass. . ." It's the word "grass" I don't > >understand. > > My reading of that sentence was "Marjorie, who (by the grace of god) is > grass." Little, single, part of a whole...this would tie into the "virus" > concept. I haven't been able to find my copy of Grass this month (I think my > mom loaned it to one of her friends) but that's what I remember. I don't know > whether this "explains" the whole thing. :) > > jessie ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 23:05:06 -0500 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Stacey Holbrook Subject: Re: Mission Child In-Reply-To: <001901be9b52$c48dbf40$1b4b2599@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 10 May 1999, Joyce Jones wrote: > Stacey criticizes this book for many of the facets that I think make it most > believable. > He (I think) writes: She. I was just talking to a friend about how often I get mistaken for a man on-line. Usually, people who once carried on an interesting conversation before the revelation start asking for pictures -after-. (snip) > Perhaps you view the situation from a > middle-American-just-say-no-work-hard-and-plan-for-retirement > perspective. (snip) As for her not realizing what would happen if > caught with the plates in her locker, you're right. I don't think > s/he had that same kind of knowledge and paranoia about the drug > culture that most of us have, and it would have worked to her > detriment had s/he been caught. But I don't think s/he should be > criticized for lack of our understanding. Good point. Our culture does have a hyper paranoid attitude towards drugs. But there were plenty of clues to indicate that drugs were not acceptable to offworlders, her employers, Mika's ex-girlfriend etc. Even if she doesn't have "our understanding" about how dangerous drug trafficking can be, she had to have had -some- understanding. > I was very taken with her rescuing of the Shaman from the camps and her > sense of duty in caring for him. Of course she bridled against his critical > attitude toward her, he was not exactly a loving kind of parental figure, > but then neither were her actual parents. S/he doesn't seem to have > expected the kind of permissive, accepting love that we 20th century parents > espouse, but s/he nevertheless exhibited a strong sense of commitment to and > respect for his leadership. I'm afraid I got a completely different reading. It struck me that Jan/na was only respectful when it suited her to be. Otherwise she was callous and hateful toward the Shaman. She had no sense of commitment that I could see-- she abandoned him -twice-. She only sought him out when she needed something from him. She whined about spending money on him but then refused to take him back to the camp when he asked her to. I know I am probably upsetting some readers by seeing Jan/na so negatively. I can't help it. She didn't strike me as being particularly admirable. I wonder why McHugh bothered writing an entire book about her? I am beginning to think that I probably missed the entire point of this book. Was it to examine gender identity? I'm afraid that I didn't see any significant examination. Was it a character study? Jan/na was well written otherwise there wouldn't be so many different interpretations of her. Was it a "message" book? Then it went right over my head. (snip) > As for her giving up the engineering career that was offered, that's the > kind of thing any parent would say. Yes we want our children to have a > secure career, but she most definitely didn't want to keep her day job. If > I remember correctly, it was only while working in the city and being forced > to get to work on time every day that she felt most alienated from her > spirit. This was the only period of her life that she had both the physical > luxury and the spiritual constraint to hate. I can see your point but I look at the same exact material and come to a totally different conclusion. A person may not like a job but when you get so close to complete starvation and when you have gone through the hell that Jan/na went through, food and the means to acquire it becomes of overwhelming importance in life. At the very least, I would think that -any- person who had been through what she had been through would wait until they had some kind of safety net before quitting a job with a steady income. But that goes back to my conclusion that maybe Jan/na isn't the brightest person around. I hope that I haven't offended too many people. I guess it bears repeating that there were some things about *Mission Child* that I liked but I guess it is more interesting to talk about the things that people don't agree on. (snip) > Joyce > Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 01:10:09 -0700 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Joyce Jones Subject: Mission Child Stacey wrote: "I hope that I haven't offended too many people. I guess it bears repeating that there were some things about *Mission Child* that I liked but I guess it is more interesting to talk about the things that people don't agree on." I'm having a little trouble with this idea. I hope you could hate absolutely everything about this book yet still not offend people who want to discuss it. I think the consensus is that if you voice your concerns as literary criticism and not personal assaults, that's acceptable. However, I kind of think you could say the whole book isn't even worth the label of literature, and such statement would be taken as your own opinion and not as a pronouncement on the author's worth as a person or even as an author. We like what we like. Sometimes we can express why, sometimes we can't, but it's fun to make the attempt in any case. We seem to disagree most about Jan/na's compassion and ability to care about the well being of others. I see getting the Shaman out of the camp as an act that may have saved his life. S/he was resentful of the attitude he had toward her, but s/he cared for him anyway. S/he did desert him for short periods, but s/he came back. Her last desertion left him with more freedom that he had in the camp, surrounded by people who respected him and with a way to make a living. Her commitment to him was fulfilled. The little boy she saved from the fever also was better off after having known her, and better off with his own people than following her into what she saw as a nebulous future. To me this is compassionate caring. Part of the reason s/he devoted herself to the sick villagers might have been a semi-death wish, but s/he saved their lives nonetheless. Jan/na is not a completely altruistic person, no Marjorie here; but being the somewhat emotionally dulled person s/he was, still s/he saved lives and changed lives for the better. S/he may not have fully understood her reasons for doing what s/he did, I don't think the book placed much value on introspection; but if actions speak louder than words, Jan/na's actions were those of a compassionate person. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 01:29:08 -0700 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Joyce Jones Subject: Re: BDG Grass teenage daughters Sharon Anderson wrote: "Suppose the characters of Tony and Stella had been reversed? If Stella had been sweet and compliant and milquetoast, imagine the criticism THAT might have engendered! Doesn't she know any teenage girls who have a mind and a will of their own?'" In a way this is the problem I have with the depiction of this type of whiney, self centered, boy-defined daughter. I don't see that Stella had a mind of her own, she and the daughter in Gate To Woman's Country don't think through a situation, don't try to see cause and effect or the ramifications of their own actions. They want what they want and what they want is a man. Also, it seems important to them to cause their mother as much discomfort as they can. I'm trying to think of what positive attributes they might have and all I can think is that they're physically attractive and have enough energy to follow through on their misguided pursuits. Stella was loved by her mother only because she was the daughter. I could find no other loveable traits that might have captured Marjorie's devotion. In her single-minded vindictiveness she was almost like a human hippae. I do like your idea of the early Marjorie and Stella being two sides of the same person -- the little angel and devil sitting on opposite sides of Marjorie's shoulders. I'm just very uncomfortable with the idea of the main female character's daughter portraying the devil. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 01:42:54 -0700 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Joyce Jones Subject: Re: BDG: Grass Sally Kamholtz writes: "i wonder if in some way it alludes to that medieval Latin saying, 'all flesh is grass.' That is to say, all life, all physical life, is transitory and fleeting. That would seem appropriate to marjorie's moving into another phase of life with her foxen friend, where she may not even retain her own name.." What a beautiful and apt interpretation. The arbai are gone, humans came very close to being gone, Marjorie's old life is gone, as is First's. In the early part of the book relationships and social constraints were meant to be permanent. The aristocrats were the aristocrats and intended to be so forever. The hunt was the hunt, and no matter who died or what harm it did to humans, it was to continue. A dutiful wife was to be a dutiful wife forever. The poor boys who were shipped to Grass were to live their lives in servitude to the church, regardless of their own desires. Everything seemed hopeless and predetermined. Because of the combined actions of humans, and foxen all life was changed. Transitory and fleeting -- perfect. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 06:06:35 -0400 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: donna simone Subject: Re: Mission Child MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Perhaps you could discuss a few of the things you liked as well? donna ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 11:25:30 -0400 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Frances Subject: Re: BDG: Grass I'd always assumed "all flesh is grass" and the references to grass in Ecclesiastes were the source for the "sign-off". > > Grass deserves comment, but I haven't yet gotten a copy to re-read it. SOMEONE > in my county has chosen NOT to return _Grass_ to the library. . . perhaps he or > she simply cannot bear to part with it. >:) > Very likely! I must have borrowed the library copy of Raising The Stones a dozen times before it was available in paperback: I'd have bought the hardcover if I could have found a copy. I learned my lesson. Now I buy Tepper as soon as published, even if it means going without lunch for a few days! Frances ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 11:32:55 -0500 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Stacey Holbrook Subject: Re: Mission Child In-Reply-To: <00a601be9b95$f47cbb00$22b11b26@donna> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 11 May 1999, donna simone wrote: > that there were some things about *Mission Child* that I liked but I guess > it is more interesting to talk about the things that people don't agree > on.....Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com)> > > Perhaps you could discuss a few of the things you liked as well? > donna There were some scenes that were very realistic. The way Jan/na allowed Mika to manipulate her, especially when he persuaded her to wear that silly dress and make-up. Jan/na's use of alcohol to numb her feelings and just to get through the day, her relationship with her parents and other scenes rang true for me. I also liked the author's "visual" writing style. I could picture what she is describing very clearly-- the renndeer with ribbons in their fur, Jan/na's dead baby left out on a hill, the bare footed female drug addict, Jan/na becoming a baffit when she becomes separated from Aslak etc. I liked how she could create a snapshot of something in just a paragraph or two. And I liked how even peripheral characters were drawn. The nondescript man that Ming Lei's uncle tried to sell the maps to was obviously dangerous even though he "looked" almost harmless. I think it was the way he kept pouring his drinks on the floor while the uncle just got more and more drunk. The uncle thought that -he- was in control but it was the man who was in control the entire time. It says a lot for her writing style that I remember so much about the book. I read *The Bohr Maker* a few days before MC and I don't recall as many scenes as clearly. Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 21:07:10 -0400 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: "Laurel A. Lamme" Subject: Re: BDG: Grass Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >I'd always assumed "all flesh is grass" and the references to grass in >Ecclesiastes were the source for the "sign-off". > > >Frances > What reference in Ecclesiastes do you mean? I had always associated Marjorie's signature with Isaiah 40:6-8: The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field: The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the Lord bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass. The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. To me, as Marjorie identified herself as part of the grass, she was also bringing a part of her religious conviction to the new tasks that might be set before her. Even as she abandoned the "duty" that she had found so tedious, I saw her accepting a role in the larger picture, the whole garden. The idea that "by the grace of God" she might play a part in the evolution, the "becoming" of her species, made sense to me as a reconciliation between her beliefs and her new sense of self. I found it hard to imagine that any character would be able to simply abandon wholesale a set of convictions, whether religious or otherwise, that she had lived by for so long. Therefore I interpreted Marjorie's reference to grass not only as an acceptance of "the people is grass"but also as a hope that "the word of our God", or some other greater purpose, should "stand for ever." Laurel ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 15:18:24 GMT Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Robin Reid Subject: BDG: GRASS Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Although I was one of the ones most thrilled at the prospect of discussing GRASS, I haven't weighed in yet (too many papers to grade at the end of the term, aieee), but cannot resist. Great comments from all--I'll just respond to some of the general topics that have been raised. I've been 'reading' this book ever since the paperback version came out. At least once a year, sometimes more, and have recently begun to write about it (for academic presentations, possible papers, this novel and other of Tepper's work). I think GRASS is my favorite of hers. (Although a tantalizing hint to those of you who haven't read the associated books--not quite sequels--RAISING THE STONES and SIDESHOW--don't write the Arbai totally off, heh heh heh.) The character of Stella: Interesting comments about Stella. I agree that Tepper made Stella much like Rigo, and Tony much like Marjorie which is an interesting cross-gender choice. I don't see her as all that negative a character still. Stella is adolescent--I do not have children, but I do remember being an adolescent fairly well. I thought I was smarter than the rest of the world, especially my parents, and I was pretty darn arrogant about it. I don't know that she's stupid as much as she's self absorbed. I agree she doesn't look up from her self absorbtion to think analytically about what's going on. Of course, remember neither she nor Tony were given all the information about why the family came to Grass. Tony overhears some information and has to be filled in, but Stella isn't. I like the way Tepper plays with the idea that 'traits' are not inherent 'female" or "male" in the cross family/cross gender construction of characters. For me, that's an important feminist idea. In terms of mothers/daughters: there is some interesting research out there about white middle class daughters/mothers relationships (different in some ways from other ethnic groups or class groups) which tend to show a pattern of hostility and a definite sense of daughters NOT wanting to be like mothers. (I don't know if this is true of more recent generations or not, and of course there are always individuals who are different--no generalization can be true of everyone.) I tend to read the problems between Stella and Marjorie as being partly caused by individual character traits but also being an indictment of the patriarchal family structure in which women are pitted against each other (the mother being the primary caretaking/disciplinary/indoctrinating parent) in various ways. I know that a time or two when I had to move back in with my mother because of economics, both my peers and my mother's peers reacted with horror at the thought. My friends swore they'd die rather than go back into a dependent situation with their mothers. I also know as a teenager I swore I'd never be 'like' my mother, meaning in her situation--after the divorce (my father ran away with a graduate student), my mother and I became much closer. I didn't follow the same life choices, but I distinguish her the person from her choices, many of which were dictated to some extent by the culture she grew up in. She's been cheering me on all my life, by the way (and has never once 'nagged' me to get married or produce grandchildren--making her almost unique among the mothers of my female and some of my male friends.) There are also some interesting points made by Joanna Russ and Rita Mae Brown (in essays and novels particularly) about the extent to which some people interpret feminism as all women having to like each other and to be nice to each other (some would say a fairly middle class feminine code of manners) --they see that attitude as overpowering the political impetus of feminism. I don't see feminism as requiring that all female characters like each other, be equally smart, or nice. Marjorie does at times seem too good to be true--but that's true of many epic heroes. What I most like about Marjorie and see as one of the most important traits is that she loves "animals"--and probably likes them better than she likes most people. (A character trait I share!) The description of her relationship with her horses (and remember she was an Olympic rider/competitor) and how she reacts to the hippae and later to the foxen are all connected--and are all a major part of why she suceeds as she does. Her refusal to be rescued and leave the horses to the hippae are the sole reason why First is able to argue the other foxen into acting rather than observing. Their conversation in the stables while the hippae are rampaging around in Commons make that clear--that the moral issue of one species' interaction and treatment of another is at stake. Marjorie's empathy and communion with the horses (and since some of the sections of the novel are narrated from the horses' point of view, they perceive her communion as well and trust her completely) is important as is the fact that by the end of the novel the horses are become more aware and possibly able to communicate with humans. Is Marjorie's closeness and concern for other species part of eco-feminism, or following the path of St. Francis, or both? Back to Stella: I do think that by the end of the novel, Stella has changed (because of her experiences with the hippae), but even so Marjorie realizes that Stella does not particularly like her (Marjorie) even so though she's much nicer about it than she had been formerly. RELIGION/FEMINISM: I should start by saying I'm not a Catholic, but a close friend is, and our discussions of religion has informed my reading of this novel. The interesting thing is that she was raised a Catholic, had all her education (through a Ph.D.) in the Catholic school system (Jesuit university!), and completely identifies culturally as a Catholic but she is (and has been since a teenager) an atheist. So the issue of people changing in regard to their religion is a complex one--that is there are cultural and ethical beliefs that my housemate would never give up just because she doesn't believe in the "god" of the church. (Now I"m not saying what the Church would say about her status, but how she identifies herself). It's also true that American Catholics are affected by their culture and there are differences and tensions that have occured (both between the nuns and priests and Rome, and the lay people and Rome). I don't know what Tepper's religion is, if any, and I don't particularly care. Her future of a world controlled mostly by a single religion is a dark and dystopian one, and the book shares the ideas of some feminists who see patriarchal religious institutions as oppressive to women particularly. Marjorie and her religion: a lot happens quickly in this novel, but it's interesting how much is going on in terms of religion. Marjorie changes by the end, as people have noted, but even at the start, she's not walking the total Catholic party line. At the start, she is working in a 'camp' for women and their children who broke the planetary population laws (more than two children). I love the ironic note of how since women who became pregnant in camp could name their sexual partner a lot of prominent men ended up dead, and the rules were changed so only women guarded and visited the inmates! Marjorie is doing this work as part of her charity work (the Catholic church has set up this camp as a refuge, but it sounds a lot like a concentration camp to me). (COmpare her work on Earth with what happens when she asks one of the people who live in Commons about charity work in their culture, and what they tell her!) Her work in "Breedertown" is an important first scene. The Catholic church does not allow contraception--and she thinks about the women trapped between their religious duties and the planetary laws. She also thinks about class and education issues: MARJORIE has an implant (I think the phrase is "imported from a humanist enclave on the coast" or something like that, sorry don't have the book). So she's a Catholic. She goes to confession regularly. But she not only has an implant, she's been able to get one for one of the children in the camp (and, I might be wrong here, but perhaps an abortion as well????) Her husband is Catholic but obviously has no problem with having a mistress and as Marjorie notes regularly breaking the vows of their marriage. As nobility, their household contains two priests (one related to Rigo). I like the complicated way Tepper portrays individual character's reactions and interactions with their religion. It's not simple. Throughout the novel we see Marjorie struggling with major theological and religious questions--to do with God's purpose, the presence of evil, and the moral response. She changes in the course of the novel, partly through her experiences (including the hallucination/vision she experiences after her fall from the tree-heh heh heh--does anybody but me see a resemblance between Rillibee Chime, child of a Joshua and a Miriam, and the "God" Marjorie sees in her vision/hallucination--that is a resemblance in the physical description). Also the question of the sentience/souls of intelligent life that is not human is made an important part of the plot as well. I see "religion" described in various ways in GRASS (as an institution controlled by fallible humans, as an oppressive power on Earth, as a system of ethical beliefs, as a gateway to spirituality--all things which can be in tension as 'different' things) as an integral part of this novel's morality, and an important part of the theme, characterization, plot, etc. The resistance that Brother Mainoa and Rillibee Chime exemplify show that a dominant religion can also oppress men--neither chose to be Sanctified. They were taken, and then they were exiled in punishment. Someone mentioned they equated "Sanctity" with "Scientology." I see Sanctity as being much more an extrapolated future version of the Church of Latter Day Saints (known to outsiders as "Mormons.") Some of the theological beliefs (the importance of names, genealogy, the belief that marriage lasts past death, which as Marjorie notes with relief Catholocism does not) are very similar to what I know of this church. There is an intersting tension bewteen the real life oppression of women that has come because of religion (not limited to "Christian" ones) and the equally real life access to a sense of individual empowerment and agency that has come because of religion. I think the novel does a great job of exploring that tension. Marjorie's last letter to Rigo shows that she has cast off some of the restraints or beliefs of her church--but not all her spiritual and religious beliefs or her moral acts. Well this has gone on long enough and I need to grade more papers! Robin ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 00:04:16 +0200 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Giacomo Conserva Subject: BDG: Grass -all flesh is MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit the Italian edition is preceded by this quotation (I'm translating back into English): Isaias, 40,6 greetings. Giacomo C. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 19:17:57 -0500 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Big Yellow Woman Subject: Re: BDG: Grass MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit N Clowder wrote: > > I absolutely loved the scene where Marjorie visits with god after knocking > herself on the head. Yes, I loved that too and had completely forgotten about it until rereading. Especially great was God's "I wouldn't bother with guilt" comment that Marjorie later repeats to herself. > The one thing that really troubled me about the book was the Hippae > themselves. I'm re-reading (again) to see if I missed something, but I > didn't get why they were so malicious. So unrelievedly evil. I think > Tepper may have offered some explanation in terms of Hippae evolution, but > it's hard for me to buy creatures that are so single-mindedly focused on > torturing or killing others. The only explanation I found for this was that the Hippae are essentially stuck in adolescence. They are intelligent and powerful, but don't believe that they will become Foxen, that is, that they have the potential to evolve further, so they stubbornly persist in destruction. They don't even realize that in killing the foxen they are killing their own potential selves.Lack of maturity may not be a totally satisfying explanation for their evil, on the other hand, it doesn't always seem to require wholly unusual levels of evil on a group's part to plan and execute the eradication of another group just because they are "foreign". That seems all too common. Did anyone else think that Marjorie's search for Stella might have undertones of the Persephone myth? One thing I really appreciated on the re-read was how Tepper shows how the rift between Marjorie and Rigo developed based on each of their desires for what the other would be to them and how those desires were not fulfilled. It seemed much more delicate and truthful than to just paint Rigo as perpetually angry, although perhaps he was that too. In some ways, it seemed like what each wanted was not so different from the other, but since they never even attempted to tell each other what it was, their relationship inevitably disintegrated. If Tepper had been able to add that depth to more of the relationships the book would've been even better. Susan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 19:42:24 -0500 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Big Yellow Woman Subject: Re: BDG Grass teenage daughters MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Joyce Jones wrote: > What must [Stella] be representing? Why is she so easy to hate? > (snip) Why do some of our best > feminist authors have to depict the main feminist character's daughter as > such an anti-feminist? While I agree that Stella was unlikable, I think "easy to hate" and "anti-feminist" are stronger terms than I would use for her. If she *is* easy to hate, perhaps it's because Tepper makes the dissonance between mother and daughter so one dimensional that it just seems like stubborn petulance on Stella's part. I wouldn't argue that Stella is a feminist, but is she an anti-feminist just because she is unlikable or because she disobeys her mother in order to pursue a man? We never learn why Stella dislikes her mother, but I imagine it could be because Marjorie is (at first)a spineless, hopeless do-gooder who lets her husband trample her without even trying to hold him accountable for his shit, who lets him bring his mistress along to Grass! Who never even turns him away from her bed! He's a jerk! And Marjorie's acceptance of that seems to earn her the devotion of many a man. Maybe Stella rejects that? Maybe she thinks that if she takes the initiative in her life, she won't end up like Marjorie? It's all conjecture. Oddly enough, Stella ends up with a pretty devoted partner. (Hmm... could the human Hippae thing be related to immaturity?) Anyway, I also wonder why this bad-daughter thing seems to be a small trend, but perhaps there's more to it than anti-feminism? (As Pheobe always says) Lightly, Susan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 17:22:01 EDT Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: a pair of light-hearted moments Last week I read Bruce Sterling's newest book, _Distraction_. It's not particularly feminist, although neither is it objectionable. The opening scene involves our main characters driving down the highway and having to stop for a roadblock. The local Air Force base is basically shaking down out-of-staters for their money, since the base's federal funding has been cut. Our heroes wander up to the lead car. A pair of confused people are being offered coffee and croissants by a heavily armed lieutenant, who explains that they're having a bake sale. Then they charge them a few thousand dollars or so. I was four pages on before I got it. Remember that bumper sticker that says "It will be a great day when our day care centers have all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber."? Second item: Barbara Hambly's recent _Dragonshadow_, which I enthused about a while ago, just arrived in the mail. Our lead character, a 41-year-old woman, is going through menopause and having hot flashes. It made me think: is there any more under-reported event in all of SF? still laughing about the bake sale, jessie ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 21:08:02 +0000 Reply-To: mystgalaxy@ax.com Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Maryelizabeth Hart Organization: Mysterious Galaxy Subject: DISTRACTION MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jessie: Loved the bake sale too! Anyone read HOLY FIRE? Maryelizabeth -- *********************************************************************** Mysterious Galaxy Local Phone: 619.268.4747 3904 Convoy Street, #107 Fax: 619.268.4775 San Diego, CA 92111 Long Distance/Orders: 1.800.811.4747 http://www.mystgalaxy.com Email: mgbooks@ax.com *********************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 12:12:52 -0500 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: DISTRACTION Comments: To: Maryelizabeth Hart In-Reply-To: <373B3F32.7B6F@ax.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 13 May 1999, Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: > Jessie: > > Loved the bake sale too! > > Anyone read HOLY FIRE? > > Maryelizabeth I read Holy Fire and liked it very much, although I was bothered by what I saw as its relative plotlessness. Sterling has a history of using female protagonists but I've never been entirely comfortable with them. I wouldn't mind hearing some opinions on the protagonist of Holy Fire? Do female readers find her believable? Mike ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 14:54:01 -0400 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Frances Subject: Re: BDG: Grass Sorry: I think I'd mentally merged the Isaiah verse with the "season and a time passage"; probably my aging mind stirred in a bit of Job and Book of Common Prayer as well to sweeten the pot! > >I'd always assumed "all flesh is grass" and the references to grass in > >Ecclesiastes were the source for the "sign-off". > > > > > >Frances > > > > What reference in Ecclesiastes do you mean? I had always associated > Marjorie's signature with Isaiah 40:6-8: > > The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, > and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field: > The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the Lord > bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass. > The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand > for ever. > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 15:08:34 -0400 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Frances Subject: Re: BDG: Grass A tiny detail that has haunted me since I first read the book: the description of autumn leaves as "heartbreak gold." Her prose is sheer pleasure. Although there is no verse in Grass, when it does appear in other books it's always right: "Bright the sun burning" in Jinian Footseer and "The Last Winged Thing" in Raising the Stones, for instance. Frances